Welcome to my blog, resistance is futile. These are my ramblings, thoughts, musings and opinions on all manner of topics. I blog about subjects including technology, social media, cycling, politics, science, animal welfare or anything else that takes my fancy.
I hope you enjoy reading my blog. Be sure to leave a comment or follow me.

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

The Gaia Hypothesis was first proposed by James Lovelock back in the 1960s. In its simplest form it is often described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. It proposes that the different parts of the Earth (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated, and therefore form a complex, interacting system.

It further attempts to explain how these components interact with the natural elements of the Earth (animals and plants). In essence, it tries to demonstrate that there is a physical connection between the natural elements of the Earth, with the other elements just described.

Extracted from Wikipedia:"This theory is based on the idea that the biomass self-regulates the conditions on the planet to make its physical environment (in particular temperature and chemistry of the atmosphere) on the planet more hospitable to the species that constitute its life."

For those with a keen mind and eye, the idea of Gaia was very firmly introduced into the film Avatar. The Navi tribe were portrayed as being physically and spiritually connected to their environment in a manner that is largely compatible with Gaia.

However, as much as the hypothesis may have gained in popularity recently from films such as Avatar, the reality is that it is incompatible with the natural forces that govern our existence.

Gaia has been criticised by many scientists, including Ford Doolittle, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.

In his 1982 book, The Extended Phenotype, Richard Dawkins argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. He rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilise the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".

In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that nothing in the genome of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism.

Gaia is at odds with natural selection, and with evolutionary processes. To act for the greater good of the planet, and to ensure its continued survival is unfortunately pure fiction. You only have to look at the wholesale destruction that human beings are inflicting to know this.

Organisms act in their own self interests to ensure they have the lion share of resources (food, water, territory), thus ensuring the survival of not just themselves, but more importantly, their progeny. When group collaboration provides a better solution, then altruistic traits will become more prevalent.

Gaia is also almost certainly a religious metaphor. Every species and component of the Earth interacting together to form a beautiful planet of wondrous variety could have been lifted from the sacred text of practically any religion.

For all of its charm, Gaia is an illusion. It contradicts many well understood scientific theories. It would require planning and foresight, which natural selection simply does not have. It is a work of fiction that belongs in films such as Avatar, and has no place in reality.

"Organisms act in their own self interests to ensure they have the lion share of resources (food, water, territory), thus ensuring the survival of not just themselves, but more importantly, their progeny." Which is altruism, a mechanism of nature we also know very little about, other than its immediately beneficial effects which one could easily interpret as forward thinking.

Similarly, many scientists agree that "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." ( http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ ), now considered Darwinian evolution.

Let's face it, when it comes to some of the extremely specialist adaptations we see in nature, the Darwinian view of evolution cannot answer the complexities we see in these organisms.

And in ignoring these complexities, we leave a vacuum of knowledge, free to be filled by theists and their own brand of "knowledge".

Since the emergence of Gaia, we now have "Earth Sciences", which part admission that Lovelock was onto something and part semantic word play, to avoid actually admitting he was onto something.

Common sense informs us that any complex and dynamic system like he Earth can't not be deeply interconnected, as we're now beginning to understand.

I'm not going to make an argument for Gaia, but instead not dismiss it entirely because it doesn't align with a narrow view of the world, or the universe.

But let's not forget, right at the smallest scale, the simplest of organisms is, essentially a rudimentary engine suspended in a moist sac of fluids, and little more.

If this be the definition of life, then who are we to assume the Earth is less, when it is quite clearly more?

"Let's face it, when it comes to some of the extremely specialist adaptations we see in nature, the Darwinian view of evolution cannot answer the complexities we see in these organisms."

What complexities are you referring to? Evolution by natural selection accounts easily for the adaptations we see in the natural world, including the human eye. If you haven't read it already, then I recommend you read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins, which explains how many complex adaptations arose via descent with modification.

"Since the emergence of Gaia, we now have "Earth Sciences", which part admission that Lovelock was onto something and part semantic word play, to avoid actually admitting he was onto something."

Maybe you're referring to Environmental Science, which is not the same thing as Gaia. Gaia was a hypothesis to explain the apparent inter-connections between the different parts of the natural world.

"If this be the definition of life, then who are we to assume the Earth is less, when it is quite clearly more?"

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here Wayne. Even the smallest bacterium will act in its own self interest to survive.